Highly Improper To Direct Chief Justice To Relax Procedure: Rajasthan HC In Court Staff's Plea For Promotion Without Holding Efficiency Test
In a plea by 10 Junior Personal Assistants (Junior PAs) employed at high court seeking promotion as Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer without undergoing efficiency test, the Rajasthan High Court said that an elaborate procedure was provided by an order of the Chief Justice, who is the supreme authority in the matters of appointment. Noting that Constitution of India recognizes that no...
In a plea by 10 Junior Personal Assistants (Junior PAs) employed at high court seeking promotion as Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer without undergoing efficiency test, the Rajasthan High Court said that an elaborate procedure was provided by an order of the Chief Justice, who is the supreme authority in the matters of appointment.
Noting that Constitution of India recognizes that no one other the Chief Justice should have domain in internal administration of the High Court, the court observed that it would be wrong to direct the Chief Justice to exercise his discretionary powers to relax the Rules and exempt the petitioners from Efficiency Test.
A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that Article 229 of the Constitution contemplated full freedom to the Chief Justice of High Courts in appointments of officers and servant to the High Court and their conditions of service, and when there was an elaborate procedure for appointment of Junior PAs, and PAs that provided for an efficiency test, it would be highly improper to issue a direction to the Chief Justice to exercise his discretionary power to relax that procedure.
“The Chief Justice of the High Court is the supreme authority in the matters of appointment of the officers and servants of the High Court and the Constitution of India recognizes that no other person except the Chief Justice should have domain in the internal administration of the High Court. Like the President or the Governor, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued by the writ Court to the Chief Justice of the High Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would be highly improper if the High Court issues a direction to the Chief Justice of the High Court to exercise his discretionary powers to relax the Rules and exempt the petitioners from Efficiency Test. We therefore hold that the petitioners cannot seek a direction for granting them exemption from the Efficiency Test.”
"This is not correct to say that the petitioners are subjected to hostile discrimination by asking them to qualify in the Efficiency Test for promotion under 25% quota to be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency. The petitioners have admitted that they were among the Junior Personal Assistants who made a representation in the year 2020 for exemption from the Efficiency Test. The order granting such exemption by the Chief Justice was applied uniformly and the petitioners were themselves beneficiary of that order of exemption. This is a matter of record that the petitioners lost their chance for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer on account of their lower rank in the seniority list whereas some of their batchmates could make it. There is therefore no question of parity that can be claimed by the petitioners with their own batchmates who got promotion as the Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer," the court said.
The petitioners were appointed as Junior PAs in 2016 and had made a representation to the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court seeking promotion to PAs on the basis of seniority. However, they were asked to appear in an efficiency test for the promotion along with the Junior PAs recruited in 2020.
In May 2024 the petitioners had made a representation to the Registrar General of the High Court seeking exemption from appearing in the Efficiency Test, and referred to a 2020 representation seeking exemption from the Efficiency Test which was considered by the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice wherein twelve Junior Personal Assistants of their batch were promoted to the post of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer by relaxing the Rules.
Thus they claimed that they nurtured legitimate expectation in view of the previous decision to grant exemption from the Efficiency Test and that the same treatment would be meted out to them in future. However, their representation was rejected; against which they came to the high court.
It was the case of the petitioners that they deserved equal treatment to the ones who were granted exemption in the year 2020 for such promotions, in absence of which they would be suffering hostile discrimination. It was argued that under Article 229, the Chief Justice had ample power to deviate from any condition of recruitment or promotion.
On the contrary, it was argued by the respondents that such relaxation which was discretionary could not be asked for as a matter of right by the petitioners.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Article 229, highlighting complete freedom granted by the provision to the Chief Justice in the matter of appointments to the High Court and their conditions of service, and held that,
“A Government employee is appointed following the recruitment Rules and can only insist that the provisions in the recruitment Rules as to leave, salary, promotion, etc. should be followed and cannot make a grievance against the action of the respondents who intend to follow the Rules…There can be no manner of doubt that if the Chief Justice has exercised the discretion in good faith and not in violation of any law, a writ shall not lie on a specious plea that it could have been exercised differently.”
Furthermore, the Court opined that a writ of mandamus could be granted only where there was certain statutory duty on the authority which was not discharged. Mandamus did not lie where the duty was discretionary and such discretion had been exercised reasonably.
On the petitioners grievance that their chances of promotion would diminish if the Junior PAs recruited in 2020 i.e. at a later point in time than the petitioners were permitted to participate in the same promotion, the court said that holding a common efficiency test without segregating vacancies for appointees of different years would be unfair, improper and prejudicial to the petitioners. In this light, it was held that the Junior PAs appointed in 2020 could not seek promotion with the batch of 2016 against the vacancies that occurred prior to March 2, 2020.
"However, we are not inclined to go back in the past and disturb the previous promotions. One of the reasons for this hands-off decision is that there is no specific challenge to the promotion granted vide order dated 09th October 2020. We were informed that in view of the order dated 14th May 2024 the Efficiency Test was conducted but the final result was not published. The respondents shall now publish the result and promotions shall be granted only in the manner as indicated hereinabove," the court said.
The court further said that the pleadings in the writ petition are completely vague and it is not even pleaded that at what position the petitioners are in the seniority list. It also said that no details of the Junior Personal Assistants senior to the petitioners are given and the writ petition is completely silent as to why the Chief Justice should exercise the powers under Rule 30 relaxing the condition of Efficiency Test.
"In our opinion, it would not be in the public interest that the employer deviates from the conditions of service on mere representation by a few employees. The High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall have no powers to issue a direction to the High Court not to follow its own Rules," the court said.
Title: Twinkle Singh & Ors. v the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 95
For Petitioners: Mr. Lokesh Mathur
For Respondents: Ms. Abhilasha Bora; Ms. Khushbu Choudhary